In those charges, the US Anti-Doping Agency said that more than
10 of Armstrong's former teammates and other cyclists had
provided evidence against him.

USA Cycling, which runs the Olympic team, refused to discuss or
speculate about the reasons why these men won't be considered for
the team.

The four cyclists are:

George Hincapie, who most consider to be Lance
Armstrong's closest and most important former teammate and rode
with him during all 7 Tour victories. Hincapie has competed in
the last 5 Olympics and last year said he was excited about the
possibility of competing in a 6th. Hincapie is said to have
testified to a grand jury last year in the Armstrong doping
probe, and many consider his testimony to be critical to
Armstrong's case (for or against).

Levi Leipheimer, who competed in the last
Olympics. Leipheimer was injured earlier this year, so he might
have been a longshot in any case.

Christian Vande Velde, who just missed a spot
on the 2008 Olympic team and therefore was very excited about
competing in 2012.

David Zabriskie, who earlier this year said he
was very eager to compete for a slot on the Olympic team.

All four cyclists may be riding in the Tour de France this month
(unconfirmed). An amateur cyclist who passed this news onto us
said that the Tour de France would leave these cyclists in
perfect physical condition for the Olympics and, therefore, that
he found the news even more odd.

(Our thought was that the Tour might actually leave them too
tired to compete, and some cyclists have had to choose between
the two events. So it's possible that the juxtaposition of the
two events is the reason the cyclists withdrew their names from
consideration, though that hasn't been a problem in the past.)

The USADA has not publicly revealed the names of the cyclists who
provided evidence against Armstrong. But the case will likely now
proceed to an arbitration phase in which Armstrong will have a
chance to challenge that evidence. Armstrong's response to the
USADA charges is due on the 22nd of June, and the case will
likely then proceed over the summer.

One obvious possibility, therefore, is that some or all of these
cyclists are among those who have provided evidence against
Armstrong and don't want the distraction or bad publicity
associated with the arbitration taking place at the same time as
the Olympics--especially if they themselves admitted being
involved in doping.

Another possibility, presumably, is that they want to be
available to defend Armstrong.

UPDATE: Earlier this week, VeloNews
wrote about this issue, saying that the USADA charges could
impact the selection of the US Olympic team. Apparently, riders
selected for the team must be in good standing with the USADA,
which those who provided evidence against Armstrong may not be
(because they themselves may also have doped.) According to
VeloNews, Zabriskie and Hincapie were both expected by many to
make the team.

The reader who sent us the VeloNews article provided some further
context:

This must be an awful time for everyone involved in this mess.

What's funny about USA Cycling's announcement was that is really
wasn't necessary. [One of the riders selected for the Olympic
team] Phinney was already in contention for the Time Trial slot.
The other slots are chaotically and murkily decided anyway.
There would not have been a story if they hadn't brought it
out.

Also, the Tour is a week earlier than usual, specifically to give
the athletes enough time to recover for the Olympics.

NOTE: Almost everyone has
strong feelings about the Armstrong case, both pro and con.
Lance Armstrong's supporters fiercely support him and don't want
to see his amazing accomplishments tarnished any more than they
already have been (and, doped or not, the accomplishments are
still amazing). They also point out that this is all very old
news and that the country has better things to focus on. Others,
meanwhile, simply want to know the truth. I'm in the latter camp.
I followed Lance Armstrong's Tour victories minute by minute, and
those and his charitable work have always been hugely inspiring
to me. Based on all that has come out about cycling in the past
decade, I have come to assume that pretty much everyone in the
sport doped and that you had to dope if you wanted to be
competitive. Given this, I can certainly understand why Lance
Armstrong would have doped, and if he did, I'm not going to get
on some huge moral high horse about his "cheating." ("Cheating"
gives you an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. You
don't get that if everyone else in the field is doing the same
thing.) If Lance Armstrong didn't dope, meanwhile, and everyone
else--including his teammates--did, his accomplishments are that
much more staggering. And inasmuch as we've come this far, I
want to know the truth.